White paper 2016

Preface

By Axelle Lemaire, French Minister for Digital Affairs

One of my goals since joining government has been to deliver on our commitment for greater equality through digital technology. I am doing everything in my power to ensure that technology brings empowerment and does not lead to additional discrimination and social exclusion.

An increasing number of our administrative procedures are performed online. This saves time and boosts productivity for those who are comfortable using computer hardware and software. But it can pose a genuine problem for those who do not have access to or do not know how to use either.

At a time when everyone is talking about “digital by default”, my aim is to promote “accessible by default”. Digital accessibility is not just about making websites and IT applications available to a certain group of disabled users. The real goal, which deserves most attention, is to ensure that the communication tools that we use are more far-reaching.

To this end, I am working closely with Ségolène Neuville, Deputy Minister for Disability and Social Exclusion Issues and Clotilde Valter, Deputy Minister for State Reform and Administrative Streamlining.

We have begun by updating the General Government Accessibility Guidelines (RGAA) to ensure they reflect the latest technological developments in the fast-moving IT world. Particular focus has been placed on ensuring that public stakeholders have at their disposal the resources required to optimize digital accessibility.

Furthermore, we must do everything we can to ensure that software developers are aware of digital accessibility and trained to take it into account. With this goal in mind, the government has signed a charter with public and private further education schools to ensure that digital accessibility is included in their curriculum.

From a European perspective, I have been paying very close attention to the work being carried out on the proposal for a Directive on the accessibility of the public sector bodies' websites, and I visit Brussels on a regular basis to argue in favor of a Directive with a wider scope.

Lastly, my Digital Republic bill, which passed its first reading at the National Assembly on 26 February 2015, includes proposals to promote digital accessibility.

Article 43 aims to guarantee access for the deaf and hard of hearing to a telephone hotline service by offering a simultaneous and visual written translation relay service.

Article 44 covers accessibility to public communication services. It will require public service entities to disclose their level of compliance with accessibility standards. Failure to do so will result in their being fined. In addition, they must draw up a timetable over several years explaining how their digital services will be made available.

Given the progress already made and the work that lies ahead, it was an honor for me to attend the 9th European e-Accessibility Forum organized by BrailleNet and the Cité des sciences et de l'industrie on 8 June 2015. I was able to see at first hand the wealth of projects and achievements of universities and public libraries.

None of this would have been possible without the long-term joint efforts of Braillenet, the Daisy Consortium and the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF). I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all of them for their hard work and commitment.

You can rely on my continued support. Thank you very much.

Framing e-Accessible Knowledge. The stick, the carrot, and cozying up: A litigation and legislative strategy for making e-accessibility the default in American post-secondary education

Despite solid federal laws in the US that require higher educational institutions to provide equal access to their programs and activities, students with disabilities are not always given access to the same technology and materials as their peers. What are the reasons for this and what efforts need to be taken to make colleges and universities sit up, take notice, and make provision for integrated access to their programs and activities?

By Daniel Goldstein, Attorney, Brown, Goldstein & Levy (Baltimore, Maryland)

Daniel Goldstein became involved in the field of disability rights law nearly twenty-five years ago at the behest of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). After successful agreements reached with Apple, eBay, Ticketmaster, and Amazon on the accessibility of their websites, Dan helped form the Reading Rights Coalition in February 2009, bringing together 30+ organizations representing persons with print disabilities. The goal of the RRC was to make mainstream digital book devices, applications, and content accessible. As part of that work, Dan represented the NFB in a suit against Arizona State University over its Kindle pilot program and filed complaints with the Department of Justice against five other schools with similar programs. Since then, Dan or members of his firm have been involved in reaching agreements with Florida State University, Penn State University, University of Montana, Atlantic Cape Community College, Maricopa Community College, and the Seattle Public School System to make their digital curricular content and instructional technology accessible.

Legal obligations

The scope of American law as it applies to accessible content and educational technology in American education shapes the strategy to have equal access for all. Federal (national U.S.) law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)¹ and the Rehabilitation Act², requires that higher educational institutions provide equal access to their programs and activities. Thus, students with disabilities are entitled to the same information and to engage in the same transactions with equal timeliness and with a substantially equivalent ease of use. Separate access is permitted only when integrated access is not feasible. Separate access, for example, might include tactile graphics that replace informational non-textual materials that cannot be described adequately with words or numbers. Similarly, if the teacher writes on the board during class, blind students should have an accessible version of the teacher's notes in advance of class in order to be able to follow along with the rest of the class.

These laws are not new. The Rehabilitation Act has been in effect since 1974; the ADA, since 1990. But most universities are in violation of the law. Why? Firstly, the acquisition and distribution of digital content on campus, the control of websites and the acquisition of educational technology is completely decentralized, so that, in the absence of leadership by college presidents whose attention is typically elsewhere, no concerted effort is made to ensure that educational electronic information technology and digital content is accessible. Secondly, no national law imposes liability on publishers of post-secondary educational content or on the developers of educational technology. In the absence of a market demand, they are not motivated to address accessibility. Thus, the end game for the disability community is to create a market where accessibility is a positive competitive factor by motivating the educational institutions to demand accessibility from within and with third party vendors.